Tuesday, October 22, 2013

A
review of circumstances, people and documents related to the
Carpenter Affair.

Two
years ago I began publishing a series of posts on the Leah Haley
case. I found a number of aspects of the woman's story of interest.
Researching and writing about her experiences led to many intriguing
and relevant aspects of ufology. Among them was something that came
to be known as the Carpenter Affair, a chain of events in which
hypnotist John Carpenter accepted approximately $14,000 for
delivering copies of the case files of 140 clients – people suspecting
themselves to be alien abductees – to Robert Bigelow and his now
dissolved National Institute for Discovery Science. The 140, which
included Haley, were not informed by Carpenter that he made such
arrangements.

John Carpenter

Carpenter
was the director of abduction research for the Mutual UFO Network at
the time, the 1990's. He was also a Missouri Licensed Clinical Social
Worker. Several posts here at The
UFO Trail
addressed the Carpenter Affair, including The Leah Haley Case: John Carpenter, which contained statements obtained from the man during January,
2012. While Carpenter acknowledged he was provided cash from Bigelow
on multiple occasions and that he delivered abductee information to
Bigelow, Carpenter denied that any of his former clients were hurt in
any way. Additional remarks of potential interest
from Carpenter included stating that other researchers of alien
abduction were approached with the same proposal as he and that some
of them may have also shared data.

News
of the Carpenter Affair first began to reach the public in early
2000, and Gary Hart became a principle reporter of the circumstances.
He therefore viewed the related posts at The
UFO Trail
with interest. In August Mr. Hart chose to submit commentsto the blog,
addressing some key points that he stated Mr. Carpenter repeatedly
ignored or twisted to a brighter point of view.

Mr. Hart
and I then began a series of interactions. At my request, Hart
explained how he came to provide MUFON in 2000 - and then the State
of Missouri in
2001 - with information related to the Carpenter Affair.

UFO
and Ethics Investigation

Long
interested in ufology, Hart informed me he was investigating a UFO
case in 1999 when he met with some abductees who confirmed rumors of
the file sale. In addition to telling Hart about events surrounding
the Carpenter Affair, they also told him MUFON was doing nothing
about it. Hart took interest, and recently
described the chain of events.

“I
supplied MUFON with raw evidence so they could do their own
investigation, talk to the witnesses and make a time line, etc.,”
he informed The
UFO Trail,
“since at that time I felt it was their job to investigate the case
and not mine. They were in a position to uphold their own ethics
policy.”

Robert Bigelow

However,
Hart was disappointed to confirm MUFON leadership was already aware
of the situation. The organization took no corrective actions, left
Carpenter in a position of authority and continued to encourage
people to participate in his hypnosis sessions.

Hart
explained, “Immediately after filing my MUFON complaint I was told
in no uncertain terms that MUFON had no intention of taking the
complaint seriously and actually doing an investigation, so I
investigated the case further and made a proper report/complaint to
the state licensing board.”

A
portion of Hart's formal complaint filed to MUFON was contained in a
July, 2000, email published at UFO UpDates.
Hart specified at the time that some of the information and
documentation might well need to be on public display, emphasizing
that the best interests of the organization and the public were not
served by keeping the circumstances secret or out of public view.
Such documentation, Hart wrote, included letters written by Carpenter
to Bigelow, as well as a letter written by Carpenter's attorney. Some
of those documents and their significance will be explored shortly.

The
information contained in Hart's reports and formal complaints was
originally obtained from a variety of sources, he told The UFO
Trail, including Carpenter's ex-wife, Elizabeth. “I found
Elizabeth to be truthful in my many talks with her,” Hart
explained, adding that the same could not be said for Carpenter.

Another
source of information was Leah Haley. She supplied Hart with evidence
during his original investigation and much more recently provided The
UFO Trail with copies of a document she gave Hart for inclusion
in his 2001 report to the State of Missouri.

“Perhaps
the most important point in all of this is that MUFON's ethics code
was all for show,” Hart reflected. “They had and apparently still
have no intention of holding anyone, even a board member, to their
code of ethics.”

Selling
Case Files

John
Carpenter told The UFO Trailin January of 2012 that his “data sharing” with Bigelow “was
spread over three years around 1995” and that “reimbursements
trickled in over the period.”

Carpenter
additionally stated, “Despite rumors on the Internet, I NEVER SOLD
my cases!!” (emphasis his)

Copies
of letters written by Carpenter to Bigelow and included by Hart in
his submissions of evidence to MUFON and the State of Missouri were
provided to The
UFO Trail.
One such letter (see the two images to the right) dated June 29, 1996, primarily dealt with advising
Bigelow that Carpenter and fellow hypnotist Yvonne Smith agreed to
conduct work for Bigelow and receive financial compensation in
return. Additional statements written by Carpenter, however, further
suggested that his January, 2012, assertions to The
UFO Trail
were not entirely accurate, and that he had for all intents and
purposes sold abductee case files, whatever terminology one might
choose to describe it.

“Personally, I want to thank you, Bob, for your assistance regarding
the 140 cases I mailed to you,” Carpenter wrote Bigelow in 1996. “That
helped pay some bills. The remainder has been what we have been living
on since last December at the rate of $600-$800 per month... What has really hurt this year – after I began copying and sending files – was the elimination of my bonus/incentive pay program at work.” (emphasis his)

Carpenter
was recently offered an opportunity to comment. He was supplied a copy of the 1996 letter and specifically
asked about the discrepancy between his statements of January, 2012,
in which he emphasized he never sold his cases, and his above
statements contained in the letter.

“I
am now and always have been in complete possession of all original
case files, approximately 140 in number,” Carpenter replied in an
October 15 email. “Mr. Bigelow paid me for my time, expense, and
labor in making some copies that his elite science panel could review
in order to understand the abduction phenomenon more fully.”

While
Mr. Carpenter may describe his activities as he chooses,
it is not difficult for this writer to understand why some interpreted that case files were sold. One
might also empathize with those who feel that to suggest otherwise is
misrepresenting the circumstances, or, at the least, evading the relevant issues.

Carpenter
added that measures were taken to protect confidentiality of the
witnesses, including changing or blacking out names, an issue that
has at times been disputed, as well as had its practicality called
into question. Some argued that Leah Haley's name, for example, would
not necessarily have to be on her case file for an even somewhat well
informed individual to recognize the file as pertaining to her. Much
more importantly, competent arguments have been made that whether or
not the client names were included is completely beside the point.

Context
and Capacity

By
1997, Carpenter's former hypnosis subject and then-wife Elizabeth, a
self-described abductee, had privately informed some other abductees
their files had been sold. Responses would eventually
range from absolute rage to complete denial that Carpenter would have
done such a thing.

A
group of abductees who felt betrayed decided to explore legal action
and retained lawyers. In a series of events that spanned three years
and continue to be unclear, no charges or civil action were brought
against Carpenter and the case was dropped. Some were under the
impression a statute of limitations expired, some thought lawyers
representing the abductees would have had a great deal of difficulty
quantifying damages, while yet others suspected more devious causes.

Whether
or
not it had anything to do with the case being dropped, a recurring
dynamic within such circumstances involves defining exactly what is
taking place between a hypnotist and their subject, particularly in
the context of investigation of alien abduction. Hypnotists continue to
often avert from formally defining the role of hypnosis subjects who
might
be considered research subjects or therapy clients, but are much more
frequently simply referred to as abductees or witnesses.

1997 letter from the law office
of William E. Stoner

Further
clouding the issue is failure to define the specific role and
obligations of the hypnotist/investigator. A licensed social worker,
for instance, could be interpreted to be administering professional
services to some type of clients, while the hypnosis subjects of an
artist or historian might tend to be interpreted differently, and
whether or not they should be. Such are the specifics that
abduction researchers and organizations that support them perpetually
omit from clarifying in their methodology and in practical manners.

A 1997 letter from the law
office of William E. Stoner, Carpenter's attorney, was mailed to legal
counsel for Carpenter's former clients and in response to allegations of
wrongdoing. The
letter suggested Carpenter was not acting in a professional capacity
when working with the individuals, making it a moot point whether or not
he sold information contained in their files without their knowledge or
consent.

The letter stated, “His [Carpenter's] collection of data is for his own
personal pleasure as a hobby and as an interesting study. He does not
do it for compensation.”

However,
copies of additional documents provided by Hart clearly show that was
not
completely correct. A 1994 MUFON regional newsletter (see images to the
left), crediting
Carpenter as the editor and published some three years prior to the
letter from Mr. Stoner's office, informed readers they could use credit
cards, bill
insurance companies and set up payment plans for Carpenter's hypnosis
sessions. The newsletter also announced Carpenter's move to a new
office at the Center for Neuropsychiatry where he would be conducting
hypnosis sessions.

Carpenter's
professional business card, stating his credentials as a social
worker, was displayed at the top of a page. The announcement stated
that his hypnosis practice and research of anomalous phenomena, and
specifically “UFO abductions”, would be openly and professionally
supported at the Center for Neuropsychiatry.

“The
bad news,” the announcement stated, “is that there can be no more
free hypnosis sessions. However there is good news: payment plans are
possible and medical insurance may indeed cover your sessions. Even
VISA and Master Card charges are allowed! Cost is $65 for the session
– even if the session lasts 3–4 hours. (That is still a
bargain!)”

Obviously,
Carpenter prospected for self-described abductees, accepted financial
compensation for conducting hypnosis sessions and did so from a
professional medical facility while billing insurance companies.
Clients had no reason to suppose they were dealing with a financially
uncompensated man “collecting data for his own personal pleasure”,
as Mr. Stoner's office framed it, as compared to a mental health professional
conducting paid services bound by applicable laws and codes of
ethics.

A
2001 two-page document prepared by Leah Haley (below, right) for inclusion in Gary Hart's
complaint to the Missouri Division of Professional Registration
further called into question the portrayal of the situation as
described by Mr. Stoner's office and Mr. Carpenter. Ms. Haley explained how
John Carpenter originally presented himself as a mental health
professional, repeatedly assured her that all information discussed
would be kept confidential and provided her with an assessment of her
mental condition. Such circumstances would of course not lead one to
interpret Carpenter was acting in a recreational capacity. Moreover,
Haley paid Carpenter.

“The
total amount I paid John for the 15 sessions was $825,” Haley wrote
in 2001. “I have canceled checks for these payments.”

She
concluded, “Had I known that John would sell my case files or
disclose information he did not have permission to disclose, I would
never have gone to him.”

Haley greatly revised her opinions of her experiences, the validity
of regression hypnosis used as a memory retrieval tool and,
unfortunately but understandably, the integrity of some members of the mental health
industry.

The
Story Broke

In
2000, after legal options dissolved, Elizabeth created a website and
published details of the Carpenter Affair. If her intentions were to
inform the public and force discussion, she was successful.

UFO
Updates provided
access to an abundance of comments on the topic. In a July 20, 2000, email, John Velez challenged
Budd Hopkins and his position of downplaying the significance of the
Carpenter Affair. Selling files for cash, Mr. Velez emphasized, with
no notice to the witness, was unacceptable under any circumstances.
One of the few ways to insure it didn't happen again, he explained,
was to shine a lot of light on it.

Velez
continued, “This nasty business has now been confirmed by Bigelow
himself, Walt Andrus, Dr. [John] Alexander of NIDS, and about seven
of the abductees whose files were sold.”

Up
to that point, long standing MUFON Director Walt Andrus had privately
rationalized Carpenter's actions, seemingly attempting to deflect
responsibility from MUFON. He stood on such platforms as suggesting
the abductee files were Carpenter's personal property, making it a
non-MUFON issue.

If
that was the case, critics countered, then exactly what did Carpenter
do in his capacity as MUFON director of abduction research? And was
that to suggest MUFON supported such conduct from its board of
directors?

Hart's
Formal Complaint

Hart's
investigation and resulting 2000 formal complaint to MUFON
cited specific violations of the MUFON code of ethics, some of which
about witness care was ironically composed by Carpenter. Hart charged
that Carpenter had engaged in “unprofessional conduct, unethical
conduct, conduct unbecoming a MUFON official and negligent
misrepresentation of himself as a health care professional during
activities that involve 'abduction research', hypnosis, contact with
witnesses and the general public.”

The
charges, the complaint added, were substantive and represented an
abuse of power and position occurring over many years. Hart's
complaint suggested that Carpenter's unprofessional activities
rendered his entire body of research worthless, as one could not
determine truth from fiction within abductee accounts or Carpenter's
conclusions. That was particularly the case, it was stated within the
complaint, “given the exceptionally dysfunctional behavior this
report documents as having occurred between John and his abductee
contacts.”

Hart's
complaint to MUFON cited how Carpenter had stated his title as a
MUFON official, presented his professional business card and used his
licensed medical position to establish trust with witnesses. In many
cases, it was stated, Carpenter then obtained personal medical
records, combined them with taped hypnosis sessions and sold the
personal case files, among other indiscretions and unauthorized
entrepreneurial ventures detailed and demonstrated within the complaint.

Internal
Affairs

John Schuessler

About
the time the Affair went public, Director Andrus handed off the job
to MUFON board member John Schuessler. Critics feared Schuessler was
biased towards minimizing the Carpenter circumstances and would not
offer the situation objective concern, as he was a member of a
science adivisory board for NIDS and Bigelow. Some argued it likely he knew about the
situation and failed to take action for years.

Jim
Moseley's September, 2000, Saucer Smear
contained a piece on the saga. Mr. Moseley cited long and rambling
Internet posts made by both Carpenter and his former hypnosis subject and
new wife, Debra, that attempted to explain and justify Carpenter's
actions. Moseley quoted the MUFON director of governmental affairs,
Larry Bryant, who expressed concern about activities and intentions
of fellow board members. Mr. Bryant stated:

"Since
a cloud of alleged impropriety now hangs over the Executive Committee
(of MUFON) for its having taken so long to act upon its months-long
knowledge of the 'Carpenter Affair', I hereby call upon all members
of the Executive Committee to resign forthwith from their Committee
positions, from their membership on the MUFON Board of Directors, and
from their MUFON general membership - all in the interest of helping
restore the public's confidence in the purpose, operation,
management, and integrity of this organization...

"In
addition, you Executive Committee members owe all of us in the entire
field of UFO research not only a full, written explanation as to who
on the MUFON Board originally knew of the 'Carpenter Affair' (and
when they knew it) but also a published apology for their having
embargoed or otherwise downplayed that knowledge at the expense of
the rest of the Board. If we have a lesson to be learned from this
debacle, how about this one: Enforced silence never can be the ally
of truth!"

Moseley
followed up on the story two months later in his November, 2000, Saucer Smear, in which he described the MUFON continuing lack of action or
explanation:

“Our
readers will recall that in our Sept. 5th issue, we told you of the
internal scandal in MUFON regarding the fact that John Carpenter,
their Director of Abduction Research, sold one hundred and forty
(140) abduction case histories to wealthy [Robert] Bigelow of NIDS
(National Institute of Discovery Science). John Schuessler, the new
czar of MUFON, has promised an investigation by an Ethics Committee
consisting of four unnamed members of their Board of Directors, and
he has stated that the results of this internal investigation will be
published in the MUFON Journal.

“However,
we have recently received the October issue of the Journal, and there
is not a word therein about the John Carpenter affair! On the
contrary, the lead article is authored by Carpenter, who uses the
letters 'MSW' and 'LCSW' after his name. We have no idea what these
letters mean, but we do know that the article in question is an
absurd defense of the ludicrous 'abduction video' which was the topic
of Carpenter's presentation at this year's MUFON symposium in St.
Louis. It thus appears that Mr. Carpenter is still riding high in the
MUFON hierarchy!”

That
may very well have remained the case indefinitely had Gary Hart not
filed a complaint to the Missouri Division of Professional
Registration, apparently spurring further action. In the April, 2001,
MUFON Journal,
then-Director
John Schuessler informed the MUFON nation, “John Carpenter has
vacated the post of MUFON Director of Abduction Research, citing
personal reasons and the need to spend more time with his career
activities.”

Schuessler
thanked Carpenter for his work and generosity. “We will miss this
important source of information,” he wrote.

To the best of my
knowledge, MUFON never directly informed its membership or even the 140
former clients of Carpenter of the circumstances. It is a strong
possibility that a large
majority of the 140 still do not know about the Carpenter Affair.

The
Missouri licensing board investigated Hart's complaint and handed
down
a five-year probation period on Carpenter's license as a clinical social worker. The period
was completed in 2006 and the license is currently under no
disciplinary status.

Comments?

John Carpenter was offered an opportunity to provide comments for this post, and subsequently wrote in an October 15 email, “Mr.
Bigelow funded all of the major researchers in some fashion with
equipment, various projects, conferences, documentaries, research
trips, etc. Receiving help from him for a scientific and serious
research endeavor was not unusual. Researchers presented many
proposals to him. His elite science panel included two astronauts who
had walked on the moon. We should be proud that that level of science
and expertise was involved.”Carpenter was also offered an opportunity to comment on some specific previous remarks in addition to those addressed earlier in this post. In January of 2012, Carpenter stated to The UFO Trail that
additional researchers were approached with similar offers as he, and
that some of them may have also shared data. Encouraged to directly
address details of such circumstances and expand on those remarks,
Carpenter chose not to do so.Controversy would continue
to surround the MUFON activities of both Mr. Bigelow and Mr.
Schuessler. In more recent years a failed collaboration between the
nonprofit UFO research organization and Bigelow Aerospace Advanced Space
Studies included some major funding, initially reported to be provided
by Bigelow. The deal went south amid many complications that included
dismissals and resignations of MUFON personnel. In January, 2011, former international director for MUFON, James Carrion, wrote at his blog, Follow the Magic Thread, "Mr.
Bigelow did not fund MUFON’s work for BAASS, instead 'sponsors' that
Bigelow revealed to John Schuessler but not to the other MUFON Board
Members put up the money."Multiple attempts were
unsuccessful to obtain comment from Robert Bigelow for this post. His
statements continue to be invited should he ever be inclined to provide
them.John Schuessler was sent
emails requesting permission to ask a few questions related to the
Carpenter Affair. No responses were received.

John Alexander

Colonel
John Alexander, a former NIDS staff member and
among those originally confirming the Carpenter Affair, was asked
earlier this
year to please comment on related issues, such as any
interest he may have had in the 140 case files. He was also asked, in
his opinion, why Mr. Bigelow obtained copies of the files and financed
Carpenter's activities. The colonel was additionally requested to
please comment on whether other researchers supplied Bigelow with files,
as Carpenter suggested.

“Lastly,”
I wrote Alexander, “former MUFON Director James Carrion
alleged that Bigelow moved funds on behalf of an undisclosed
financial sponsor during collaborations with MUFON. Can you offer any
comment on that? Is there anything you might be at liberty to discuss
concerning relationships between Bigelow corporations and
intelligence agencies?”

In
an August email, Colonel Alexander replied briefly, “You should ask
Bigelow if you are interested in old affairs.”

Relevance: Was 'Everyone' Doing It?

In
order to understand the culture of the UFO community of the 1990's,
one should be aware that a great deal of attention was given to
alleged alien abduction. This subsequently included wide tolerance of
the use of regression hypnosis as a memory retrieval tool and related
concepts. Researchers such as Budd Hopkins, Dr. John Mack, Dr. Karla
Turner and others were giving the masses much to consider.

Our
English counterparts at the British UFO Research Association enacted a moratorium on the use of hypnosis
in 1988 which
continues
today, but little could have been further from the procedures
conducted by American abduction researchers. Much more is publicly
known today about the challenges inherent to using hypnosis as a
memory retrieval tool than was the case 20 years ago, and that should
be taken into consideration when reviewing certain circumstances. In all
fairness to Carpenter and abduction researchers of the 1990's, it bears
mention that rarely can one push edges of the envelope and avoid
controversy at the same time. It is also of course much easier to assess
past circumstances than it is to accurately gauge the bearing today's
choices will have upon tomorrow.

Whatever
one may choose to personally think about John Carpenter, the facts of
the matter are his actions were reviewed by applicable bodies,
consequences resulted and Mr. Carpenter served his debt as ruled.
That is the case whether or not any given party may feel consequences
were either excessively strict or negligently soft.

The
Carpenter Affair nonetheless continues to be relevant for a number of
reasons. The investigation conducted by Gary Hart demonstrated, among
other things, an extremely detrimental lack of clarified boundaries
between hypnotist and client. Expectations of acceptable behavior
were not clearly defined and were virtually nonexistent. Attempting to use information obtained during regression
hypnosis as evidence of alien abduction stands on an extremely
slippery slope under the best of conditions, but given the
circumstances of Carpenter's activities, The UFO Trail tends to agree the work was rendered worthless as Hart previously observed.

One
particular relevance of such circumstances is that the work continues
to be periodically cited, while completely omitting mention of the
environment and conditions in which hypnotic narrations were
obtained. At this point and in actuality, some of Carpenter's former
hypnosis subjects have revised their opinions of the validity of the
information induced during their sessions.

Even
more importantly, the circumstances were not isolated incidents.
Other hypnotists have been demonstrated to similarly and
detrimentally blur the lines between hypnotist and friend,
investigator and therapist, entrepreneur and truth seeker, authority
figure and lover. There is much material available on extreme errors
in research methodology and resulting flawed conclusions associated
with the work produced by ufology hypnotists. In spite of that being
the case, their work continues to be selectively cited as
justification for fantastic and unsupported assertions. Their work is
also counter productively cited as reason to continue the futile use
of regression hypnosis while their activities actually included many
of the same emotionally unsafe and dysfunctional dynamics as did
Carpenter's. As Hart documented in his formal complaint
to MUFON, one well known researcher informed him "everyone does it,"
referring to researchers commonly both selling case files and having
sexual relations with alleged abductees they investigated and
hypnotized. Further complicating the circumstances were and continue to
be tendencies to intermittently refer to such individuals as abductees,
hypnosis subjects, witnesses, clients of some type, including therapy
clients (and sometimes whether or not the hypnotist was actually
qualified to conduct therapeutic activities), and similar such titles.
It has become apparent enough during the past 20 years that a
detrimental byproduct of the circumstances, if not an outright
intention, is the creation of opportunities for hypnotists and
organizations who support them to vacillate on the nature of the
relationships. Ambiguity is maximized and accountability is minimized.

The
well of regression hypnosis was tainted at the emotional and
financial expense of, by any other name, research subjects, and to
the benefit of some hypnotists. It was done while details of the activity and its minimal efficiency were
and continue today to often be misrepresented.All of that stated, the
Carpenter Affair remains relevant for yet another reason: The
circumstances involved many more people than just John Carpenter. While
he receives the majority of the attention for obvious reasons, the chain
of events directly involved and were enabled by significant members and
organizations of the UFO community. The involved parties influenced
trends and public opinion before, during and long after the Carpenter
Affair.

Gary
Hart emphasized during our interactions and while entertaining my
questions that he felt a most relevant aspect of the Carpenter saga
was the MUFON lip service given its code of ethics and official
procedures. Some of the policies that were consistently violated,
Hart pointed out, included
failing to properly inform and obtain consent from research subjects
of the terms and conditions of their participation, a policy that
Carpenter himself suggested be
implemented yet obviously neglected to practice. MUFON leadership not
only failed to correct the circumstances, but supported their
continuation for whatever combinations of reasons.

“We
can only do the best we can to help prevent this from happening
again,” Hart concluded.